Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups--No Surprise,Hikers and Equestrians Cause More Trail Damage than Mountain Bikers

Mike Vandeman

On Mon, 19 May 2008 23:00:09 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> Those of us who actually have peer-reviewed articles out there in the
>> world understand the difficulty of doing real, substantial research.
>> Relying on others to prove or disprove hypotheses is very difficult
>> for the real scientist. With Mike's so-called expertise, he could go
>> out and actually do real science and have it published. Getting
>> funding shouldn't be a problem, since he is well-connected in the
>> environmentalist movement.
>
>Actually, getting kicked out of the Sierra Club

LIAR.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

SMS

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>> truth, as I did.
>
> And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
> anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
> Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>
> Again, thank you for supporting my argument.

The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users. Yet
all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and
local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups)
prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some
cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less
destructive than horses.

After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were
having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward,
yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain
bikes are causing more damage than other users.

Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians
are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their
droppings for everyone else to deal with.

Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all
the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes
necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that
would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way
down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to
open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back
up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money.

SMS

SMS wrote:
> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>
> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>
> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
> indisputable.
>
> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
> about trail impact.
>
> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.

Another article is at
"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html"
thanks to the wayback machine.

"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."

We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.

Ed Pirrero

On May 20, 8:53*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.

According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.

Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
two would travel at any given time.

I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.

I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.

Expereinced users know better.

E.P.

SMS

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
> will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>
> I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
> around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>
> Expereinced users know better.

It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the
entire trail so that other users can't get past.

I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell
out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes
are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of
extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next
to them without warning.

I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
between trail users. It's the developers that we all need to be
fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot
of Vandeman type people in the world.

Mike Vandeman

\On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:53:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On May 18, 8:51 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>>>
>>> Except when the so-called "research" LIES, and the review tells the
>>> truth, as I did.
>>
>> And, of course, your claim of "telling the truth" is unsupported by
>> anything resembling data, making it nothing more than your opinion.
>> Your opinion of what constitutes the truth is worth nothing.
>>
>> Again, thank you for supporting my argument.
>
>The bottom line is that there's a big incentive for the trail users
>opposed to mountain bikes on the trail to come up with a study that
>proves that mountain bikes cause more trail damage than other users.

Nonsense. What's the point in proving the OBVIOUS?

Yet
>all the studies, both by the various park entities (national, state, and
>local) and private studies (both by anti and pro mountain biking groups)
>prove that mountain bikes are no more destructive than hikers (in some
>cases less destructive) and that both hikers and bicycles are less
>destructive than horses.

You are LYING.

Wisdom, M. J. (mwisdom@fs.fed.us), Alan A. Ager (aager@fs.fed.us ), H.
K. Preisler (hpreisler@fs.fed.us), N. J. Cimon (ncimon@fs.fed.us), and
B. K. Johnson (johnsobd@eou.edu), "Effects of off-road recreation on
mule deer and elk". Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69, 2004, pp.531-550.

>After all this time, if anyone could show that mountain bikes were
>having a greater impact than other users they'd have stepped forward,
>yet no one has ever presented any evidence that shows that mountain
>bikes are causing more damage than other users.

BS. See above.

>Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
>have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
>don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
>they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument.

We're talking about BIKES, idiot. BIKES have no rights.

In
>reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
>you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users. Equestrians
>are invariably polite as their horses destroy the trail and leave their
>droppings for everyone else to deal with.
>
>Of course if anyone ever does a scientific study that contradicts all
>the previous studies it'd be worth looking at, or if it becomes
>necessary to limit trail use of _all users_ to reduce impact then that
>would also be worth looking at. Unfortunately, trail and park use is way
>down, so that's not a problem at this time. In fact, what's needed is to
>open a lot more trails to mountain bikers to get park visitation back
>up, to stop giving politicians excuses to close parks to save money.

BIKES aren't users. If we get rid of the BIKES, there would be no
mountain biking problems.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 8:53*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
>> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
>> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
>> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
>> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
>> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>
>According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
>person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>
>Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
>two would travel at any given time.
>
>I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
>will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.

That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
killing. Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

>I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
>around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>
>Expereinced users know better.
>
>E.P.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> I NEVER ride past a hiker. Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
>> will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>>
>> I find the biggest jerks are the casual trail users who always walk
>> around an obstacle, making MORE or wider trails.
>>
>> Expereinced users know better.
>
>It's also inconsiderate for hikers to string themselves out across the
>entire trail so that other users can't get past.
>
>I find that a bell on the bike is very useful. You don't have to yell
>out which many trail users find irritating. A lot of the time the bikes
>are very quiet and you don't hear them approaching without some sort of
>extra sound. It can be startling to hikers to have a bike come up next
>to them without warning.
>
>I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>between trail users.

There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

It's the developers that we all need to be
>fighting, not fighting among ourselves. Fortunately, there aren't a lot
>of Vandeman type people in the world.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 20 May 2008 08:57:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> OK, now it really is getting boring. Yet another article about how
>> mountain bikers cause less trail damage than hikers and equestrians.
>>
>> "http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html"
>>
>> Can we finally begin to work on public policy changes that work to
>> reduce trail impact by reducing the number of hikers and equestrians,
>> and that encourage more mountain biking? The facts are clear and
>> indisputable.
>>
>> There's never been any study that showed more damage from mountain bikes
>> than from any other non-motorized trail users. You had a lot of hikers
>> and equestrians not wanting to share trails that they felt they owned by
>> "being their first" as if that was justification for banning other
>> users, and they made a lot of outrageous and totally wrong statements
>> about trail impact.
>>
>> The issue of trail usage needs to be raised at the highest level of
>> government. There are many trails in National Parks and National
>> Recreation Areas that should be open to mountain bikers.
>
>Another article is at
>"http://web.archive.org/web/20050419115944/http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/01-08-16/biking.html"
>thanks to the wayback machine.
>
>"Botanist Richard Reader and graduate student Eden Thurston say hikers
>have long argued that the deep treads of spinning mountain bike tires
>tear up more dirt than a simple pair of hiking boots. But their study of
>trail use found that with average amounts of activity, cycling and
>hiking have similar effects on the great outdoors."

They lied about their results. See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

>We need to work hard to open more trails to mountain bikers, to expand
>the use of our parks. Outdoor users of all types need to band together
>to prevent destruction of valuable park land for development.

That's exactly what we are doing: banding together to stop the
destruction caused by mountain biking.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Ed Pirrero

On May 20, 5:40*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 20, 8:53*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, I admit that when I'm hiking it's sometimes not too pleasant to
> >> have to move to the side to let bicyclists go by, but I accept that I
> >> don't own the trail, and I don't have any more right to be there than
> >> they do, and "hikers were here first" is a very weak argument. In
> >> reality, most of the cyclists are just as considerate as hikers, though
> >> you occasionally have jerks in both groups of trail users.
>
> >According to MTB trail etiquette (at least the one I learned), the
> >person on the MTB *should* dismount and walk past the hiker.
>
> >Which makes some sense, considering the different speeds at which the
> >two would travel at any given time.
>
> >I NEVER ride past a hiker. *Always walk, and if the trail is narrow,
> >will carry my bike so that nobody must leave the trail.
>
> That does NOTHING to protect the animals and plants that you are
> killing.

Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
than I would have on foot.

> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.

I don't create ruts.

E.P.

Ed Pirrero

On May 20, 5:42*pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:

> >I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
> >between trail users.
>
> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

E.P.

recycled

"Ed Pirrero" <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dd0d59a-ab8b-4c8c-a91f-a67b19f1088b@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:42 pm, Mike Vandeman <mjva...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:03:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:

>>>I really hate these extremists that try to create artificial friction
>>>between trail users.
>
>> There is no friction "between users". It is between BIKES and other
>> trail users. The BIKES are the only problem.

> How did the bikes get out there without any riders? And why are they
> bothering you? They're just sitting there. Walk around them.

I'm imagining a derivative of the spooky scene from the classic Hitchcock
movie 'The Birds' where the birds are all silently watching the people. In
this case Mikey is sitting in a clearing surrounding by millions of
riderless bikes staring at him.

SMS

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
> than I would have on foot.

That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
mountain bikers have less impact.

If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
(at least according to all the studies done thus far).

>> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
> I don't create ruts.

The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
as important as responsible hiking.

Ed Pirrero

On May 20, 6:27*pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Never killed any plants or animals on the trail - at least, no more
> > than I would have on foot.
>
> That's really the bottom line. All the experts agree that mountain
> bikers don't have any more impact than hikers, and in some cases the
> mountain bikers have less impact.
>
> If we're aiming for zero impact, then all visitors, regardless of mode
> of transit will have to be banned, and maybe that's a good idea in some
> areas. But absent a total ban, mountain biking is as good use of the
> back country as hiking, and no worse for the trails, animals, or plants
> (at least according to all the studies done thus far).
>
> >> Or prevent the RUTS you are creating.
>
> > I don't create ruts.
>
> The whole rut thing is bogus. Hikers create ruts too, but boots create a
> different shape rut than hooves or tires. Responsible mountain biking is
> as important as responsible hiking.

I have been riding the same trails locally for about 6 years. For the
most part, these trails are limited to MTBers and hikers. No horses,
no motos.

The company that owns the land has been very generous to allow us to
ride there, and we are happy to be able to do so. I take part in the
trail maintenance program, and I can tell you that the trails most
used by MTBs are in much better shape than the trails in a nearby
state park. The difference? No MTBers allowed on the state park
trails. The state park trails are rutted and have erosion problems.
Same geology, similar amounts of users, at least from observing
trailhead parking and trail occupancy.

The trail maintenance we do amounts to removing blowdowns and
occasionally improving runoff routes to minimize erosion. There are
no ruts. There has been some trail widening at a few switchbacks, but
not too bad, and easily cured by strategic rock and log placement.

Since Mike has never seen these trails, he's just making it up.
Again. I guess, if I were less charitable, I would call that LYING.

But I wouldn't, because I am charitable.

E.P.